In the minutes of the morning meeting of 18 April 1844, an incomplete draft of the constitution for the “kingdom of God” was read. In the afternoon meeting of that day, the constitution was discussed. In the discussion, a remark was recorded about the relative importance of the church and kingdom: “He [Er. Lorenzo D. Wasson] considers that the kingdom is something more important than the church and is approximating nearer to God.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 126.)

It is the “kingdom of God”– not a church — whose destiny is to destroy all other governments, kingdoms and institutions pretending to exercise authority over mankind. God’s kingdom will be welcome relief to the oppression mankind has suffered for thousands of years.

The fledgling “kingdom” did not acquire any clear definition in 1844. When anyone was inducted into the initial organization “the men took an oath to keep their proceedings secret.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 40.) Very little information has been available about the “kingdom of God” until the publication of the minutes as part of the Joseph Smith Papers project.

Even though we now have minutes of the meetings, they are incomplete. As an example, Joseph Smith “gave much instructions on many subjects” in the 11 March 1844 meeting, but what was said is not included in the minutes. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 43.) In the same meeting, “the chairman [Joseph] continued his instructions”–again, without any detail of what was taught. (Id., p. 44.)

The LDS Historian’s Office describes the meeting of 13 March 1844 by stating the minutes “clearly fails to record most of the day’s council discussion.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, pp. 45-46.)

The view we have into the incipient “kingdom” is even more limited because it was decided by the participants that,

It was considered wisdom to burn the minutes in consequence of treachery and plots of designing men. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 50)

Records were burned. Many of the minutes that now survive are recreations made afterwards. Attempts at remembering some of what happened.

In the meeting of 19 March 1844, “The chairman [Joseph] continued his instructions on the order of the kingdom of God.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 52.) We do not have what he instructed.

By the afternoon of 4 April 1844 the subject of “kingship” had been raised and discussed. Before anyone was considered a “king,” the minutes of 4 April record:

Er Alman [Almon] Babbit differed in some respects from some of the previous speakers. He explained his views on laws in general (i.e.) the laws of the land. He referred to the apostacy of the children of Israel in choosing a king. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 79.)

He was referring to the decision to replace a theocratic system, at the time presided over by Samuel, with a king–described in 1 Samuel chapter 8. When the prophet Samuel inquired of God he was told, “they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.” (1 Sam. 8:7.) The Book of Mormon anticipated the gentiles displacing the Nephite/Lamanite inheritance, and proclaims: “this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.” (2 Ne. 10:11.)

Elder Babbit’s protest made sense and has scriptural support. In effect, he was saying the restoration of a “kingdom of God” by adopting a king would be like a return to the post-Samuel era of the Old Testament. That is generally considered a time of apostasy, as Babbit suggested.

Elder Babbit sent a letter on 10 April, explaining he would not be able to participate in the meeting scheduled for the next day. He expressed his confidence in the group, and said, “I will most cheerfully give my sanction to all measures which may receive your sanction.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 86.)

Babbit’s protest may have led the Chairman Pro-Tem (Sidney Rigdon) to offer an observation about how the “kingdom of God” ought to be operated. Rigdon explained:

The design was to form a Theocracy according to the will of Heaven, planted without any intention to interfere with any government of the world. We wish to have nothing to do with them. We have no violence to offer to governments, no rights to infringe. The object is to live so far above their laws that they cannot interfere with us, unless by violence. (JS Papers Administrative Record, p. 88.)

Perhaps that would have satisfied Babbit, had he attended. Hyrum Smith spoke to the group and suggested they “have a greater work to do than Enoch had[.]” (JS Papers Administrative Record, pp. 93-94.)

In the meeting held 11 April Joseph Smith was sustained as a “prophet, priest and King” over the “kingdom of God” by members of the council.

It makes one wonder whether the Book of Mormon imperative (“this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles.”) was at least part of the reason Joseph would be slain two months later. One thing is certain: The “kingdom of God” did not begin to roll down the mountain in 1844. Nor has it broken in pieces any of the false governments oppressing mankind. The world has yet to see that put into motion by God’s almighty hand.

The restoration took a dramatic departure in 1844 from the trajectory it was on in the years 1830-1844. Beginning in 1830, there was a church being formed. There followed structural development. Offices were being added. There was overlapping jurisdictions, common consent, and other parts in constant motion throughout that time. In March 1844, the church was left out of something new called “the kingdom of God.” Membership in the church was not necessary for participation in the “kingdom of God.” (See JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 97.) The “kingdom of God” is not the LDS Church and the LDS Church is not the “kingdom of God.” They are separate:

There is a distinction between the Church of God and kingdom of God. The laws of the kingdom are not designed to affect our salvation hereafter. It is an entire, distinct and separate government. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 128.)

Joseph died three months after introducing the idea of a separate “kingdom of God.” Therefore, how it would have developed, what it would have accomplished, and whether it would be acceptable to God are questions left unanswered. What is very clear from the scraps of its beginning is that the purpose of the endeavor was to fulfill a prophecy from Daniel. This fulfillment would NOT be through a church established by Joseph Smith, but would instead come through another organization, whose beginning was separate from, and outside of the church.

The prophecy that this other organization (to be known as the “kingdom of God”) would fulfill is:

This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass,His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay. Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth. (Daniel 2:31-35.)

Daniel related the foregoing dream, and then gave its interpretation:

Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters’ clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. (Daniel 2:38-45.)

The interpretation makes Nebuchadnezzar the “head of gold” or the first kingdom of man whose influence would last throughout history until God reclaims rule over the earth. The project begun in March 1844 was intended to develop into the “kingdom of God.” Joseph explained the purpose and identity of the newly begun, but still poorly defined endeavor:

[T]he kingdom which Daniel saw was not a spiritual kingdom, but was designed to be got up for the safety and salvation of the saints by protecting them in their religious rights and worship. ..The literal kingdom of God, and the church of God are two distinct things. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 128.)

At the incipient stage, a committee began a draft to set out the contours of the kingdom. It was never finished, and ultimately was abandoned, but the beginning of their draft work was approved, and the committee was given more time to work to completion. Unfortunately, events quickly changed and the draft was never finished. In their draft they explained the state of the world:

[T]here is not an original kingdom on earth that holds the rightful authority from the king of Kings and Lord of Lords, to govern his subjects: but that all the nations have obtained their power, rule and authority by usurpation, rebellion, bloodshed, tyranny and fraud; (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 111.)

The document laments the state of the world under man’s rule and explained that,

the cruelty, oppression, bondage, slavery, rapine, bloodshed, murder, carnage, desolation, and all the evils that blast the peace, exaltation, and glory of the universe, exist in consequence of unrighteous rule, and unlawful dominion, by which the pure, the patriotic, the noble, the virtuous, the philanthropic, the righteous and wise servants of God have been persecuted, hunted, whipped, scourged, exiled, massacreed, sawn asunder, crucified and slain in all ages of the world, under all earthly authorities, and by every form of government, from murderous Cain, to the days of the exterminating [Lilburn W.] Boggs of Missouri; And that all the pride, corruption, impurity, intrigue, spiritual wickedness in high places, party spirit, faction, perplexity and distress of nations, are the natural results of these illegitimate governments; (Id., pp. 111-112.)

The problem remains still today. There is no government of God, and therefore no existing kingdom of God, and the first attempt by Joseph did not produce even enough groundwork to permit it to continue past the 1880s. (See JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 6.) It was abandoned, because without God’s directing hand there was nothing well-defined enough to preserve.

The LDS church has incorrectly taken the habit of calling itself “the Church and Kingdom of God.” For example, D. Todd Christofferson said in the October 2015 general conference, “the Church is, after all, the kingdom of God on the earth.” (Why the Church.) It isn’t.

The kingdom was not properly established during Joseph’s lifetime, but it belongs to the last dispensation. The kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem and Zion, are yet to be established.

Zion and a New Jerusalem will exist before the Lord’s return in glory. (D&C 45:28-32; 133:17-35; 45:65-75.) But God will bring it as His work. Mortal man will labor with Him, but the Lord will be given credit for accomplishing it. (Mosiah 12:22; 3 Ne. 16:18; –both quoting Isaiah 52:8.)

A chorus of Pied-Pipers are now clamoring for attention, none of whom speak for the Lord. None offer the slightest idea or information on how to proceed with the work of Zion. They chirp criticism and proclaim their doubts, claiming something ought to be done. The chorus does not sing from the same page, for one says, “there is no need for a temple”, while another states confidently, “Denver is too enamored with Joseph Smith”, and another proclaims as his great theme, “all you need is Jesus, for He has no final work on Zion to accomplish”, and another, “I’m not saying there hasn’t been a visit by something or someone with Denver, but it certainly wasn’t Christ.” Then there is: “The Davidic Servant will be the translated John!” says another. (This despite the fact that Zion is a mortal challenge to be accomplished by mortals. Immortals do not involve themselves directly in responsibilities required of mankind.) Many other alternatives are also offered, inconsistent and contradictory, all of which pursue as their one theme: Do not expect the Lord to bring again Zion; and if He does, do not expect it to be done with any involvement by Denver.

Do not be misled: I make no claims for myself. Nothing has been accomplished. Until the work is completed, no one can claim a role for himself or proclaim he will fulfill prophecy. Quite frankly, little has been done so far by any one, and every man’s life is short with little time to labor before taken from this world. The task of Zion is far more daunting than the foolish imagination of the human heart. If we soberly assess what is left to be accomplished, we would all repent and cooperate with one another, lending whatever strength we have to the task. We would stop fighting and opposing one another, and ask what we could do to aid.

No institution exists with the capacity to accomplish Zion. It will be so entirely foreign to this world that the people who come there will be required to adopt a new society, new way of thinking, different way of interacting, entirely new law, a form of government that does not presently exist, an order to their lives that alters everything, and a form of righteousness that is only possible for a society with a new structure.

Much of the sinfulness of mankind is due to the way our society, government and economy are organized. If mankind were reordered, a great deal of what is broken inside the individual would be fixed by a new environment. But it is an “all or nothing” proposition. Half-measures will fail. The restoration did not reach a conclusion. It began, halted, and has been receding ever since. The objective was Zion. But Zion is all or nothing. Taking “some” of the attributes without the rest of it, is doomed for failure.

Zion will have “all things in common” but only as a by-product of a larger construct. Without the rest of the social structure, implementing “all things in common” is only a curse, not a blessing. The Pinery Mission in Wisconsin was established to harvest lumber for the Nauvoo Temple. Those sent to Wisconsin decided to live a “consecrated” life and have everything in common. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 24 footnote 26.) When the leaders of the mission wrote a letter February 15, 1844 to the first presidency to report on progress, they made an observation about how poorly things were working with their attempt at living consecration:

[T]he main hindrance to our successful operations was the feeding, clothing, and transporting a great many lazy, idle men, who have not produced any thing by their pretended labor, and thus eating up all that the dilligent and honest could produce by their unceasing application to labor, & (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 24.)

The economic catastrophe left the participants destitute. What was worse, the lumber from this effort, although intended for the Nauvoo Temple and Nauvoo House, was pilfered by workmen for use on their own Nauvoo residences.

Everyone knew the Nauvoo Temple had to be built with dispatch. The same commandment that required the temple built also warned that once sufficient time to build it had passed, if the saints failed to accomplish the task the church would be rejected. (D&C 124:31-32.) The men harvesting the lumber in the Pinery Mission concluded the Nauvoo Temple would not be completed according to the commandment. Their letter said:

…having also become convinced that the Church at Nauvoo are or in the Eastern States will not build the Nauvoo House according to the commandment, neither the Temple in a reasonable time. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 30.)

As George Miller observed, theft of the lumber was preventing progress on the temple:

Miller discovered that lumber they had earlier supplied for the temple and the Nauvoo House was instead being used to construct houses for the workmen. (JS Papers Administrative Records, footnote 39, p. 30.)

When a society acts on the notion of having “all things in common” as an end, rather than a by-product of a new society, then any project, just like the Nauvoo Temple, becomes almost impossible to complete successfully. This principle cannot be separated from a reordered society. This is why the Lord must bring Zion, because mankind cannot.

Minutes of a meeting May 6, 1844 mentioned twenty-five men who would be returning from the Pinery Mission in Wisconsin:

About the 1st of July there will be about 25 able men down from the Pinery who would be destitute when they returned home. (JS Papers Administrative Record, p. 155.)

Zion will not begin with people attempting to “have all things in common.” Zion will require a new government, new social order, new way of life, an altogether different society from what now exists. It will not be just adopting some new magic economic rule like “have all things in common.”

____________________________________________

There are still a series of talks that need to be given to the Christian community. No venue has yet been arranged to speak in California, Texas or Atlanta. I appreciate the effort given by so many of you, and believe the attempts have all been noted by the Lord. The assignment to speak has not been withdrawn, and I still need assistance to make such arrangements for the three venues. If you can offer an opportunity, I would appreciate knowing of it.

The public does not elect members of the Supreme Court. We elect an office holder, who selects a nominee, and such nominee must then be confirmed by the US Senate. Once confirmed, a Justice of the Supreme Court serves for life, unless impeached and removed from office.

Because of the death of Justice Scalia, this election takes place against a background of one vacancy on the Supreme Court. There are other members whose health and age make additional vacancies likely to happen during the next four years. Because of this, we know the next President of the United States will make at least one, and perhaps several appointments to the highest court in the land.

There are several issues that invade every aspect of our lives which the Supreme Court either has or will be asked to decide.

Should men who “self-identify” as women be permitted to use a woman’s bathroom? Should this be allowed even if there are minor children in the bathroom? This issue is now winding its way through the Federal Court system.

Should all churches be subject to public accommodation laws? If so, can churches be required likewise to allow men into women’s restrooms, even if minor children are in the same bathroom? The Massachusetts Attorney General is threatening to litigate this very issue.

Is Obamacare constitutional? It has been upheld in a split decision based on the power to adopt a tax, despite the fact that Obamacare would be unconstitutional if based on the power to regulate commerce. However, since it originated in the US Senate, and the power to adopt a new tax is confined to bills originating in the US House of Representatives (Article 1, Section 7, Clause 1), will this make the law unconstitutional?

When a rancher in Wyoming excavated an area along the stream on his property, and created a pond, did that subject his property to regulation by the EPA under the Clean Water Act? The EPA imposed a $20 million fine claiming they had that right. If the Supreme Court were to weigh in on such a dispute, what would they decide?

Are the limits of the Second Amendment broad or limited? Is the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms” broad enough to allow few regulations? On what basis can there be restrictions?

Is executive legislative action taken by any President of the United States an unconstitutional invasion of the legislative power confined to Congress? If not, how far can an executive impose “executive orders” which defy, neglect or contradict legislative action taken by Congress?

Everything from how you are investigated about an alleged crime, to how you are charged with an alleged crime and how you are to be prosecuted for the alleged crime is up to the Supreme Court. That court alone determines the extent of governmental power, and what steps are necessary to protect your rights against self-incrimination, due process, protection against cruel and unusual punishment, and right to legal counsel. Do these protections apply to US Citizens if the Commander in Chief employs a drone to kill people in foreign lands?

Recently a divided Federal Appeals Court upheld a law requiring the Catholic Little Sisters of the Poor to provide abortion and contraceptive care, contrary to Catholic Church teachings. The decision means the Little Sisters of the Poor face up to $2.5 million a year in fines.

The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Federal agencies are spying on citizens at an unprecedented level because of Internet, email, smart-phones and social media. The Supreme Court will be asked to determine what, if any, limits the Constitution provides to citizens under this Amendment.

The extent to which government can oppress, impose its will, tax, regulate, spy, and burden you and your property is decided in the final analysis by the Supreme Court. If Congress oversteps its limits, the Supreme Court can nullify their acts. If the President oppresses or acts illegally, it is up to the Supreme Court as the final arbiter to reign him in.

The potential justices nominated by the next President to serve on the US Supreme Court may have greater effect on your life, liberty and property than will the President. As you vote, you may want to consider the likely selection to be made by the only two candidates who stand any chance of being elected. Throwing a vote away for some symbolic gesture, as recent polling suggests Utah is now willing to do, means abdicating the decision to others (if this election is close). This seems foolish, given the enormous importance of the role the next President will have in filling the US Supreme Court.

The difference between the likely appointees of the two candidates cannot be fully known until an appointment is made. But there are two competing judicial philosophies that broadly reflect these differences:

A conservative judicial appointment would generally favor allowing social change to come slowly and to be accomplished by legislation. This approach allows elected officials to reach a consensus through compromise legislation. An activist liberal judicial appointment would view the court as an agent of change. Instead of following behind public consensus, the court’s decision can compel social changes even without a national consensus. These different approaches result in very different decisions. It is often the case that an activist decision changes society, but leaves scars and turmoil because there was no attempt to reach a consensus. Should the Supreme Court have the power to usurp the people and attempt to reshape our society?

This is the same book as The Second Comforter, translated into Spanish by a volunteer committee. The material in the book was sound LDS doctrine/teaching when originally written. Since that time the teaching has been denounced by the LDS Church, and therefore it is important as a point of contrast between what was taught for over a century-and-a-half by the LDS Church and what they have rapidly abandoned in only the last decade.

If you know of any Spanish readers who would be interested in this important teaching, they may want to read this volume. Although the institution has removed it from their body of teaching, the book teaches truth about the Gospel of Christ.

Though practically endless fodder exists for comment about the disparity between the historical texts published in the Joseph Smith Papers project and the LDS Historian’s Office commentaries and footnotes, I plan to make this last observation and leave the topic alone. Readers should be aware the Historian’s Office is blinded by an LDS tradition which they defend, even when it is contradicted by the documents they are publishing. Readers should make their own careful assessment of both the documents and the Historian Office’s running commentaries.

A number of people have already pointed out that the latest publication of the record of the Council of Fifty meeting does not support what is called in the LDS tradition “Joseph Smith’s last charge” to the twelve. Briefly the issue is this:

The twelve claim they were given a mantle by Joseph Smith that put them in control of all things LDS. This event purportedly happened 26 March 1844, because this is the only possible date that fits all the various claims about the event. The Historian’s Office editorializes about the 26 March 1844 meeting of the Council of Fifty:

A significant event likely occurred in this meeting, probably in the morning session, about which the minutes are silent but which council members discussed a year later in connection with a written summary prepared by Orson Hyde. Clayton’s brief note that JS spoke “on heavenly things and many other important subjects” likely marks what was later referred to as JS’s “last charge.” This may have been an extension of the charge relating the history, purpose, and rules of the council that was typically given to new members and that JS may have delivered in this meeting. The most complete recorded version of this charge was written down by Thomas Bullock in December 1846. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 63.)

Did you get that? An event “likely” happened “probably” in the morning, but the records do NOT mention it. But this missing information “likely marks” something (that later got manufactured to defend claims by the twelve) and “may have” happened even though nothing in the record supports the claim. Then 33 months later Thomas Bullock wrote the “most complete recorded version” of what may likely have possibly happened.

Checking Joseph’s journal, we get this report of the day on which the possible event may have happened:

The Historian’s Office adds footnotes to the record in order to insert other retrospective accounts that put Joseph’s “last charge” (as it is called) into the footnotes. Presumably so the reader is reassured the LDS traditions are supported–just not by anything that Joseph Smith was connected with recorded contemporaneously.

This fuss to support the twelve’s claim to have the right to control all things LDS ignores an obvious problem. Even if one believes the retrospective accounts, and supposes that what “might probably” have happened, really did, it doesn’t amount to anything. Traditions not only blind the Historian’s Office, they defy common sense.

The “kingdom of God” is not the LDS Church and the LDS Church is not the “kingdom of God.” They are separate:

Joseph Smith stated that the “literal kingdom of God [that is, the Council of Fifty], and the church of God are two distinct things” as “the laws of the kingdom are not designed to affect our salvation hereafter.” (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. xxiii.)

So if Joseph rolled the “kingdom of God” off his shoulders and onto the twelve, it has nothing to do with the giving the twelve jurisdiction to assume complete autocratic control over the church. There was already a revelation in place (D&C 107) that confirmed the role of the twelve in the church to co-equality with the seventy, stake high councils, and gave them no jurisdiction within an organized stake. So the assertion that the charge allowed them expanded jurisdiction contrary to and in violation of, Section 107 is not justified when the “kingdom of God” and the church are two separate things. The “kingdom of God” is “not designed to affect our salvation” and therefore did not, indeed cannot, subjugate the church.

Further, even if you accept the charge given to the twelve, rolled to them the “kingdom of God,” they abandoned it.

The final meetings of the council were held in the mid-1880s. Thereafter the council’s records appear to have remained in the custody of the Office of the First Presidency. In 1922 church president Heber J. Grant reportedly entrusted Joseph Anderson, who served as secretary to Grant and the First Presidency, to safeguard the records. In 1932 Grant and Franklin S. Richards–the last two living members of the council–met together and read through some of the Council of Fifty records. The minutes were also accessed in the late twentieth century. In 2010 the First Presidency transferred the Nauvoo-era record to the Church History Library. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. 6.)

Thus died the “kingdom of God” which, Joseph Smith probably may have charged the twelve to possess. They neglected the “kingdom of God” because they were preoccupied with acquiring complete, unfettered control to dictate over the church and hold at defiance any who dared to challenge them. They reign over the seventies and high councils with impunity. Their autocratic control holds the approximate 30% of those who remain nominally active in the church in complete submission. They have the “keys of the kingdom”–which kingdom has lapsed into complete oblivion. But they’ve parlayed that into dictatorship over the other organization, the church.

Ask yourself: Why would Joseph, knowing the “kingdom” and the “church” were entirely separate, choose to have himself anointed a “king and priest” in the Council of Fifty, and NOT in the church? There is something important to be found in the answer. An answer you will have to find for yourself because very few LDS know much about this. Unfortunately, they are too busy “not being led astray” by men who claim to probably have the “keys of the kingdom,” (at least most likelymay have–probably from the morning of March 26, 1844).

Volume 4 of the Documents put the Lecture First of the Lectures on Faith into an appendix in the back of the book. The Historian’s Office explains in the “Historical Introduction” the reason for putting it at the end in an appendix, rather than where it would belong chronologically as part of the main volume.

First, they question the authorship. Although they admit Joseph Smith edited and vouched for the Lectures, they note, “it seems likely that Sidney Rigdon had a large hand in composing the lectures.” (JS Papers Documents Vol. 4, p. 458.) They concede on the next page that “JS was apparently involved as well.” (Id., p. 459.)

Taking this point first, consider the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Joseph did not compose any of the original 66 books in the LDS/King James version of the Bible. Joseph edited and “corrected” the text.

John 6:44 in the KJV reads: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.”

JST John 6:44 reads: “No man can come unto me, except he doeth the will of my Father who hath sent me draw him. And this is the will of him who hath sent me, that ye receive the Son; for the Father beareth record of him; and he who receiveth the testimony, and doeth the will of him who sent me, and I will raise up at the last dayinthe resurrection of the just.”

Since Joseph did not compose the original text of John, but merely edited it, should it or should it not be regarded as Joseph’s product. Would it be Joseph’s as soon as he approves an edit, no matter how much of the original is left?

The LDS Historian’s Office rejects this idea for Lectures on Faith, and explains:

Because JS’s role in producing the lectures cannot be clearly determined, the first lecture is presented as an appendix of the volume rather than as a featured text. (JS Papers Documents Vol. 4, pp. 459-460.)

The volume published after Volume 4 of the Documents is the first volume of the Administrative Records containing the minutes of the meetings of the council of 50. The LDS Historian’s Office takes a different approach in this volume of minutes than their treatment of Lecture First:

[T]he minutes are published as part of The Joseph Smith Papers even though much of the record covers events in the eighteen months following Smith’s death on 27 June 1844. This volume is divided into four parts that correspond with the council’s periods of activity. Part 1 contains a record of the meetings held on seventeen days from 10 March through 31 May 1844. Part 2 of this volume covers the meetings held on fifteen days from 4 February through 10 May 1845. The final two parts contain, respectively, the minutes for three meetings held in September and October 1845, and for two meetings held in January 1846. (JS Papers Administrative Records, p. xiii.)

Only the first part of this new volume has any connection with Joseph Smith at all. The first 204 pages are the only pages covering events prior to Joseph’s death. Pages 205 to 526 are entirely a product of others. Joseph Smith, who, being deceased, did not contribute to the meetings. Yet none of these four parts are put into an appendix, as Lecture First was done.

The disparate treatment forces the conclusion that by relegating Lecture First to an appendix and questioning the authorship, the Historian’s Office hopes to undermine confidence in Lectures on Faith and bolster the inappropriate administrative decision to delete them from LDS scripture in 1921 without approval by the body of the church. Likewise, by putting into the JS Papers project, meetings held after Joseph’s death which were presided over by Brigham Young, the Historian’s Office wishes to convey the impression of continuity and trustworthiness in the LDS institution following Joseph’s death. They want to convey the impression it was “business as usual” and nothing changed.

In response to questions about the prior post concerning Nephi visiting Joseph Smith in September 1823 I add the following:

In the “Historical Introduction” written by the LDS Historian’s office for what is now D&C 14, they mention the first witness of the plates (other than Joseph Smith) was the mother of David and John Whitmer:

Whitmer later recounted that during their journey to Fayette, he, Cowdery, and JS briefly encountered a ‘pleasant, nice looking old man’ whom JS identified by revelation as a heavenly messenger transporting the plates. Whitmer also recalled that soon after their arrival in Fayette, his mother, Mary Mussleman Whitmer, was met ‘by the same old man, ‘who showed her the plates.’ (Joseph Smith Papers, Documents Vol. 1: July 1828-June1831, p. 67.)

This witness (Whitmer’s mother) knew the angel’s name as “Nephi” -just like Joseph Smith in his 1838, 1839, 1840 and 1842 writings. Her grandson wrote,“I have heard my grandmother [Mary Musselman Whitmer] say on several occasions that she was shown the plates of the Book of Mormon by a holy angel, whom she always called Brother Nephi.” (Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture, article titled Another Account of Mary Whitmer’s Viewing of the Golden Plates, found in Vol. 10; (2014), p. 37.)

In footnote 56 (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, p. 223) the Historian’s Office also cites an article in the Elder’s Journal in July 1838 as a reason to rename “Nephi” to “Moroni.” However, this is a reference to an answer by Joseph of a specific question involving the source of the plates (and not the angel who appeared in September 1823). The question and answer are:

Question 4th. How, and where did you obtain the Book of Mormon?

Answer. Moroni, the person who deposited the plates, from whence the book of Mormon was translated, in a hill in Manchester, Ontario County, New York, being dead; and raised again therefrom, appeared unto me, and told me where they were; and gave me directions how to obtain them. (Elder’s Journal, July 1838, pp. 42-43.)

The plates were deposited by Moroni, not Nephi. The fact Moroni was involved in delivery of the plates does not mean it was him who appeared to Joseph in 1823. Since Moroni sealed the records to prevent their discovery by an unauthorized party (Moroni 10:2), the records could not come from their secure location without his (Moroni’s) consent to open the seal.

Of course Moroni should have been among the “many angels” involved between 1823 and 1827. But Joseph and Mary Mussleman Whitmer both testified it was “Nephi” who appeared at the beginning (1823) to her and to Joseph. Moroni consented to allowing Joseph possession of the plates–as was his right to do. And both Nephi and Moroni were required (the alpha and omega of the Nephite dispensation) to hand off their dispensation to Joseph–as explained in D&C 128:21.

In the JSP Histories Vol. 1, the LDS Historian’s Office adds an “Historical Introduction” to drafts of history written between 1838 and 1841. In their introduction, they discuss copyist Howard Coray’s explanation of his clerical work in transcribing Draft 3. This version was based on Draft 2, which Joseph Smith “dictated” to Coray as he wrote down Draft 3. The Historian’s Office then acknowledges this:

If the statement was accurate in that sense, it suggests that JS read aloud from Draft 2 in the large manuscript volume, directing editorial changes as he read. (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, pp. 200-201.)

In the Draft 2 that Joseph Smith read from, the following description is recorded about the visit of an angel to Joseph on September 21, 1823:

He called me by name and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me and that his name was Nephi. That God had a work for me to do, and that my (name) should be had for good and evil among all nations kindreds and tongues. (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, p. 222.)

While reading the account, and making editorial changes to it as Coray wrote Draft 3, the account was rewritten as follows:

…calling me by name, (he) said. that he was a messenger. sent from the presence of God to me. and that his name was Nephi. —that he had a work for me to do that my name should be had for good and evil. among all nations. kindreds. & tongues — (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, p. 223.)

It is noteworthy that the two versions are not identical. There was a close enough examination of the text of Draft 3 for Joseph to have made several changes to these sentences. Yet in both accounts the name of the angel who visited on September 21, 1823 remained “Nephi.”

Somehow the LDS churchchanged the name of the angel from “Nephi” to “Moroni” and it is the “Angel Moroni” who sits atop almost every LDS temple. The LDS Historian’s Office deals with this problem through a footnote:

A later redaction in an unidentified hand changed “Nephi” to “Moroni” and noted that the original attribution was to a “clerical error.” (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, p. 223, footnote 56.)

That footnote uses Oliver Cowdery as a reliable source for changing the name to “Moroni” because of a letter he wrote in 1835. But Oliver Cowdery was not with Joseph in 1823-1827. The first time they met was April 5, 1829. (JS-H 1:66.) Oliver is not as reliable a source as Joseph, but the Historian’s Office uses him to justify the change of identity from “Nephi” to “Moroni.”

The same footnote acknowledges that during Joseph’s lifetime the identity of the angel was always Nephi:

The present history [Draft 2] is the earliest extant source to name Nephi as the messenger, and subsequent publications based on this history perpetuated the attribution during JS’s lifetime. (Id.)

Draft 2 was written in 1839, and appears to have been entirely based on a version dictated by Joseph in 1838. The 1838 manuscript has been lost and therefore Draft 2, made the next year, is the “earliest extant source” of the Joseph Smith History.

Taking these dates, we know Joseph identified the angel as “Nephi” in 1838, and remained consistent with that identification when it was recopied in 1839. Joseph reviewed and revised the account with Coray in 1840, and although he changed several things in the surrounding text, the identity of the angel was still “Nephi.” Subsequent publications approved or written by Joseph during his lifetime likewise identified the 1823 visitor as “Nephi.” (See Times and Seasons, 15 April 1842, 3:753-754; LDS Millennial Star, August 1842, 3:53-54.)

In 1842 Joseph became the editor of the Times and Seasons. He wrote an announcement in the March 1, 1842 edition which stated:

To Subscribers: This paper commences my editorial career, I alone stand responsible for it, and shall do for all papers having my signature henceforward. I am not responsible for the publication, or arrangement of the former paper; the matter did not come under my supervision. JOSEPH SMITH (Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, No. 9.)

This March 1, 1842 edition of the paper began the first publication of the Book of Abraham, and so it is one of the more available editions of the paper.

Three editions later, with Joseph as editor of the paper, the following account was printed:

He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Nephi. That God had a work for me to do, and that my name should be had for good and evil, among all nations, kindreds, and tongues[.] (Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, No. 12, HISTORY OF JOSEPH SMITH (Continued.))

In the JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, the footnote quoted above acknowledges the change of name from “Nephi” to “Moroni” was done “later” and by “an unidentified hand.” It could have been put there anytime by anyone. But this insertion is important enough to the LDS tradition for the Historian’s Office to footnote and to explain the name “Nephi” was a “clerical error.”

Joseph used, approved, repeated and asserted that he alone would stand responsible for identifying the angel as “Nephi.” But an unknown hand is used by the Historian’s Office to relegate this name to a clerical error when it conflicts with LDS tradition.

The question of whether “Moroni” belongs at all in the LDS narrative can be answered by another document found in the same volume. Another recap of history was composed by Joseph Smith in 1842, and printed in the same edition of the Times and Seasons wherein he announced his role as the new editor. Joseph wrote a letter to John Wentworth, the editor of the Chicago Democrat. After the letter was written and sent, it was transcribed and published in the Times and Seasons. This required Joseph to have reviewed the letter at least twice by the time it was printed in the newspaper he edited.

The letter does not name the angel, but clarifies Joseph’s experience between 1823 (first visit) and 1827 (when the plates were given to him):

The angel appeared to me three times the same night and unfolded the same things. After having received many visits from the angels of God unfolding the majesty, and glory of the events that should transpire in the last days, on the morning of the 22d of September A.D. 1827, the angel of the Lord delivered the records into my hands. (JS Papers Histories Vol. 1, p. 495; also Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, No. 9, CHURCH HISTORY.)

Joseph was not visited by a singular angel, but “many visits” from “angels“–making it possible that although Nephi visited him first in 1823, others (which may have included Moroni) also visited him during those four years. Joseph’s mother, Lucy Mack Smith, recounted what Joseph learned from the “many angels” who visited:

During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelings, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life among them. (Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and His Progenitors for Many Generations (Liverpool, S.W. Richards, 1853), 36-173.)

The PofGP version of the Joseph Smith History, verse 54, confirms that with each annual visit between 1823 and 1827 he met “the same messenger” (meaning Nephi). However, as the Wentworth Letter suggests, there were others who are not mentioned and are only alluded to have visited.

The visit of “diverse” angels is also mentioned in D&C 128:20-21. These various angels all declared “their dispensations”–a term that would refer to a beginning and ending of a gospel epoch or order.

The dispensation of Moses began with him and ended with John the Baptist. Both Moses and John the Baptist appeared to Christ, witnessed by Peter, James and John, on the Mount of Transfiguration. In Matthew 17:1-13, Moses is named and “Elias” is later clarified to identify John the Baptist. (Verse 13: “Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.”)

In the JST Mark 9:2-4, the identities are explicitly Moses and John the Baptist: “2 And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. 3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them. 4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses, or, in other words, John the Baptist and Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.” Joseph inserted into verse 4: “or in other words, John the Baptist and Moses.”

The men who began and finished the dispensation of Moses visited Christ on the Mount of Transfiguration and “declared their dispensation” to Him. It would be symmetrical for the Nephite dispensation which began with Nephi and ended with Moroni to likewise have the founder and finisher visit Joseph and “declare their dispensation” to him.

[Since Lehi was Nephi’s father some will quibble over identifying Nephi as the beginning. However, before departing from Jerusalem it was Nephi, not Lehi, who possessed the Sword of Laban, brass plates, and indicia of kingship. It was Nephi, not Lehi, who received the revelation giving instructions on how to build the boat for the trip to the promised land. It was Nephi who received the more fulsome revelation of the tree of life. It was Nephi who was shown the entire sweep of history in a revelation summarized in 1 Nephi chapters 11-14. Nephi prepared, and God preserved the Small Plates of Nephi as the foundational scripture of the Book of Mormon. Mormon did not abridge Nephi–we have his record in full. Therefore, it is more properly Nephi, not Lehi, who should be regarded as the founder of the Nephite dispensation.]

If Joseph identified the angel who visited him in September 1823 by the name “Nephi” throughout his life, using it in three drafts of his history, using it in the newspaper he edited, and not changing when given many opportunities to do so, the conclusion it was a “clerical error” that was corrected by “an unknown hand” is at best insufficient.

If “many angels” visited between 1823 to 1827, including Moroni, then leaving the name as “Nephi” does no harm, and more accurately attributes to Joseph Smith what Joseph Smith intended. No matter how the error was made, and despite an “unknown hand’s” change to “Moroni” the Joseph Smith Papers ought to respect Joseph Smith’s words above Oliver’s.

The obvious difficulty with this approach is that the tradition makes the “angel fly[ing] through the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach” (Rev. 14:6) now in gold leaf atop temples and identified as “Moroni” an embarrassing mistake. Tradition holds that this reference in the Book of Revelation was fulfilled by the first angel who visited on September 21, 1823. That would make it Nephi, even if later on an angelic Moroni was among the “many angels” visiting between 1823 and 1827.

Joseph’s account should not be undermined even if, when he tells his account and vouches for its truthfulness, he contradicts an LDS tradition.

The Joseph Smith Papers are valuable and I am very grateful to the LDS Historian’s Office for publishing them. When they are released, I get them and read them cover to cover, like a novel. I have marked, added, cross-referenced, highlighted, and corrected mine.

It is perhaps an impossible task for the LDS Historian’s Office to view the historic documents outside of the LDS tradition. Their commentaries and footnotes are composed in the context of their traditions, and do not always give an accurate picture of the documents. Hence, the many additions I have added to my copy

I think the Historian’s Office is doing their best to be helpful, and I believe they are being as honest as they can be in their circumstances. But they weave into the actual historical documents an incorrect LDS narrative through the “General Introductions”, “Historical Introductions”, “Chronologies”, “Bibliographical Directories”, and footnotes. They are unable to allow the plain words of the documents to speak for themselves. Just one example taken from the volume 4 of the “Documents” illustrates the point:

In 1921, the highest authorities in the LDS church discarded Lectures on Faith without a vote of the church. Lectures had been adopted as a “law” for the church at a conference on August 17, 1835. In that conference, every division of priesthood voted quorum by quorum to adopt Lectures as scripture and a law, followed by a vote of the entire church – men, women and children doing likewise.

The actual events presents a troubling dilemma for the LDS institution. Rather than concede that deleting Lectures in 1921 was an error, they have offered various excuses for its deletion. In the Joseph Smith Papers treatment of this awkward matter, they offer the excuse that the original adoption of Lectures was defective. In this, they are unwilling to be accountable for what is a rebellious departure from a law binding on the institution.

The LDS Historian’s Office introduces the August 17, 1835 conference minutes by describing the Lectures as an improper deviation from what was authorized. They write:

The book that Cowdery presented differed from the one foreseen by the Kirtland high council. It did not contain excerpts from the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but instead had two sections, one of which was devoted to seven theological lectures that were prepared in the winter of 1834 and 1835 for the Elders School in Kirtland. The other section contained many of JS’s revelations, which constituted the “covenants and commandments of the Lord.” No extant record indicates when or why the committee decided to deviate from its original instructions, but the change had occurred by February 1835, when the committee composed the preface to the book. (JSP Documents Vol. 4, p. 383, italics in original.)

This is how the Historian’s Office undermines confidence in the Lectures. The assertion that “no extant record indicates…why the committee decided to deviate” and adopt Lectures is not true. The conference minutes that follow this Historian’s Office introduction explains the matter:

The presidency of the church approved the book, including Lectures, by adopting the following language:

The names of the Committee are as follows Joseph Smith Junior, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdery & Frederick G. Williams. This Committee having finished said Book according to the instructions given them, it was deemed necessary to call the general assembly of the Church to see whether the book be approved or not by the Authoroties of the church, that it may, if approved, become a law, unto the church, and a rule of faith and practice unto the same. (JSP Documents, Vol. 4, p. 386, all as in original.)

The presidency did not believe there was a “deviation,” but the book was “finished …according to the instructions given them.”

After Oliver Cowdery, William W. Phelps, John Whitmer, and John Smith testified the book (including Lectures) was true and from God, John Smith asked for a vote from several bodies. The vote was taken to approve the following proposition:

That they would receive the Book as the rule of their faith & practice, and put themselves under the guidance of the same and also that they were satisfied with the committee that were chosen to compile it, as having discharged their duty faithfully. (JSP Documents Vol. 4, p. 394.)

Further testimonies were given by Levi Jackman, the 12 apostles (whose written testimony was read to the conference affirming favorably both “the Book and the Committee who compiled it”), and Leonard Rich (speaking for the 70 Apostles). Leonard Rich referred specifically to Lectures:

…he had examined the Lectures and many of the Revelations contained in it, and was perfectly satisfied with the same, and further, that he knew that they were true by the testimony of the Holy Spirit of God given unto him; he then called for the Vote of as many of the 70 as were present, which was unanimously given in favor of the Good, and also that they were perfectly satisfied with the committee that compiled it. (JSP Documents Vol. 4, p. 394-395.)

Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Bishop of Kirtland, next testified that he had examined the Lectures and knew them to be true. When he presented it for a vote by his counselors, he asked for a vote affirming the following:

He then called for the Vote of his counsellors, which was given in favor of the Book and also of the Committee that compiled it as having discharged their duty faithfully. (JS Papers Documents Vol. 4, p. 395.)

After this, John Corrill testified of his “entire satisfaction with the labors of the Committee.” (Id.)

Elder John Gould said, “he had received the testimony of the Spirit in favor of them, and that he was well satisfied with the committee” (Id.) and asked for the vote of the Elders, which was given.

Then Priest Ira Ames spoke, testifying: “he was present in the general assembly which appointed the committee, And that he was well satisfied with the fruit of their labors.” (JS Papers Documents Vol. 4, pp. 395-396.) The priests then unanimously approved the volume.

Teacher Erastus Babbitt testified the volume came “from God” and that “he was well satisfied with the labors of the committee.” (Id.) The teachers then unanimously approved it.

The most obvious reason the LDS Historian’s Office is unable to find any “extant record [that] indicates when or why the committee decided to deviate from its original instructions” is because the committee DID NOT DEVIATE from the assignment given to them.

When the assignment was given, most, if not all of those who approved the Lectures and revelations on August 17, 1835, were present. THEY understood the assignment. One of the Kirtland high council who approved the completed volume including Lectures was Samuel Smith. (JSP Documents Vol. 4, p. 387.) He was the one who originally nominated the committee. (JSP Documents Vol. 2, p. 97; 2:137, Vol. 4, p. 175; 4:421.) If anyone should have detected a “deviation” from the committee’s assignment, it would have been the one who nominated them. Yet he testified “This committee having finished said Book according to the instructions given them.” (JSP Documents Vol. 4, p. 386, emphasis added.)

The very people who understood the original assignment, including members of the committee, testified the committee had “finished said Book according to the instructions given them.” All of those involved, including the entire body of the church who voted to adopt the Lectures as part of binding scripture and a law for them, saw no deviation. It did not “differ from the one foreseen by the Kirtland high council,” as the LDS Historian’s Office asserts. Those involved saw only the faithful performance of an assignment by the committee.

Because the LDS institution inexplicably dropped Lectures by a decision made by church leaders without any vote by the membership, there can be only one of two conclusions: 1. They were wrong (which the LDS Historian’s Office is loath to suggest by any historical document they publish). Or, 2. They were right (and so “Historical Introductions” and footnotes need to support their decision).

Like many other parts of the Joseph Smith Papers, this example shows how the editors intrude into the published documents to add their defense of the institution employing them. They no doubt are convinced the institution tells a correct story of history, and therefore they construe the records to support the institution, even when it requires them to contradict the documents. But tradition should not blind us, and to read the historical documents in the Joseph Smith Papers for content, is to see that the editors often construe them to conform to a story different than the one told by the historical record.

It would be interesting if someone were to write a comprehensive account of the contrast between the editors’ explanations and the actual documents of early Mormonism.

I am very grateful for the publication of the Joseph Smith Papers. They help us to see a truer story of early Mormon events while Joseph Smith was alive, in a way that has never been possible before.